Contradicting
his own immigration minister, Australian Prime
Minister John Howard publicly admits in
London that British historian is banned for his
"views".

October
23, 1997

David
Irving after challenging prime minister John Howard
in London on October 23, 1997.

Quick
navigation

THERE
FOLLOWS the text of David Irving's two exchanges with the
Australian prime minister John Howard at the
Intercontinental Hotel, London, this mid-day [October
23, 1997] (from a tape recording): first, Irving
went to him seated in front row:

Irving: Mr. Howard, Mr. Howard!

Howard (stands up, takes outstretched
hand): Uh?

Irving: I am David Irving.

Howard: Oh, sh**. (Laughter all
round).

Irving: I wanted to say hello to you, since
you've come today to within a hundred yards of where I
live. I hope one day to be able to visit your fine
country.

After Howard delivered his speech, came a
discussion period:-

Irving:
Mr. John Howard - I am David Irving.

You know me of course. May I welcome you to our Parish
of Mayfair, as a citizen of the Parish of Mayfair? As you
know, I can't come to Australia. You have spoken a
great deal about liberalisation, of the pace of
liberalisation, which we can only greet, and of the
importance of the global network. Would you say a word
about Australia's record in the suppression of free
speech into your country, of which of course I am a
victim?

Howard: Mr. Irving, of course I do know you, uh
...

Irving (standing again): ... and of
course you are within the jurisdiction of the English
courts now sir ...

Howard: I, uh, do, I do, I do know you, and uh,
I am responsible as prime minister of my country, uh, for
taking a decision not to allow you to enter
Australia. And the reason for that decision was, uh,
based upon my government's perception of the Australian
national interest, and, uh, uh, the reasons that relate,
uh, in part, as you know, to some of views that you have
expressed about matters which we believe, if propagated
in Australia, would not be in the Australian national
interest. And my government, fully consistent with
impeccable credentials of free speech, has the right to
take that action. And I don't resile from it, I don't
apologise for it, and I believe that if it is in the
national interest of my, uh, of my country to take
decisions of that kind, uh, then we do. Taking in
relation to other people, we will continue to do so where
appropriate and any democratic country consistent with
its principles of free speech has a perfect right to do
so.